Originally anticipated during Monday’s planning committee meeting of city council, there’s still no word on whether the contentious rezoning of 1799 Bancroft Dr. will proceed.
Widely opposed by area residents, a proposal by Ramsey Lake Developments Inc. would have 84 residential units built along a strip of land stretching south along 60 metres off Bancroft Drive frontage.
The 84 units would be divided between three buildings, each of which three storeys tall.
During Monday’s meeting, Ward 11 Coun. Bill Leduc introduced a unanimously approved motion to defer a public hearing and decision until the committee’s Oct. 20 meeting.
Leduc also closed the meeting by tabling two petitions totalling 125 signatures from area residents opposing the development.
“There are a lot of people with a lot of interest in this application, so in my mind, erring on the side of caution, let’s take a beat, give it the extra time that’s needed rather than be accused later on of not listening or rushing something through,” meeting chair and Ward 10 Coun. Fern Cormier told Sudbury.com following Monday’s meeting.
After leaving council chambers mid-meeting to meet with area residents after his successful motion to defer, Leduc told local journalists, “Some developments fit, some don’t, and I don’t see this fitting the fabric of this part of the ward.”
The deferral, he explained, gives area residents more time to compile information and their thoughts to present their case to city council members.
Several area residents attended Monday’s meeting to speak out against the development in the event the public hearing had proceeded.
Sarah King Gold was one of these residents, and told Sudbury.com that one of her chief points of concern relates to traffic.
The stretch of Bancroft Drive the development would sprout from S-curves to such a degree that a pedestrian crosswalk isn’t able to be placed due to sightline concerns.
“This particular site is a very dangerous location for drivers, for pedestrians, for transit users,” she said, adding that she has joined other residents in requesting a traffic study.
Other area developments further compound traffic issues, she said, pointing to the Silver Hills Subdivision which is currently inching forward as a key example. This subdivision is proposed to see a roundabout constructed at Silver Hills Drive’s intersection with Bancroft Drive and Bellevue Avenue.
“As pedestrians, we rely on those gaps in traffic, so that’s going to make it even less of a chance for us to cross the streets,” Gold said of the roundabout.
A report by city senior planner Stephanie Poirier noted, “Traffic and Transportation have reviewed the sightline drawing provided and have no concerns with vehicular sightlines.”
The property currently houses one multiple-dwelling unit and two accessory buildings which will be demolished to make way for the development. Once completed, it’s anticipated to bring in $386,500 in tax revenue at 2025 rates, according to Poirier’s report.
Two cul-de-sacs stretch south from Bancroft Dr. on either side of the proposed development, including Seguin St. to the west and Avalon Rd. to the east, which both end prior to the railroad tracks running along the north shore of Ramsey Lake.
Prior to Monday’s meeting, a petition circulated on social media to advertise three pre-hearing community meetings and a push to oppose the development.
The social media post cautioned that the 84-unit development would “bring major impacts,” including the creation of “increased unsafe traffic,” overburden infrastructure, put parking stress on the surrounding streets, put area properties at risk of damage from blasting and filling a narrow residential zone, and “change the character of an existing and established neighbourhood designated for single-family dwellings.”
Approving the rezoning “violates the moral responsibility entrusted to the City of Greater Sudbury planning committee and the elected leaders,” area resident Dot Klein wrote in a letter included in Monday’s agenda package.
“We realize that there is a housing shortage but this is too large a project for this size of lot,” area residents Richard and Rosita Regimbal wrote in their letter to the committee. “I won’t speak for anyone else but I would not have bought this house if there were three apartment buildings in the backyard.”
Several residents clarified that while they agree that more housing is needed in the city, as resident Kristina Raisanen put it, “this space is not the area to do it.”
Some residents also lamented the loss of green space, though the property in question is privately owned and zoned residential.
Addressing many of the community members’ concerns, Poirier’s report notes:
- There’s sewer and water capacity, though the sanitary sewer on Bancroft has approached capacity so access to the sanitary sewer on Avalon Road will be required.
- Although 92 parking spaces are proposed where 114 are required, the land abuts a transit route and bicycle lanes, and “staff are of the opinion that the reduction in parking is appropriate as it will maintain at least one parking space per unit.”
- The number of vehicle trips generated did not trigger the need for a traffic impact study, arterial roads such as Bancroft Drive are designed to accommodate higher traffic volumes and there were no concerns identified for vehicular sightlines.
- The property includes a wetland, but it’s small enough that Conservation Sudbury’s policies do not require its conservation and did not express any objections to its rezoning.
The proposal “represents good planning,” Poirier’s report concluded, on lands suitable for a medium-density development and the project in keeping with broader goals around increasing housing stock.
Is there demand for higher-end housing?
During his mid-meeting discussion with area residents and journalists on Monday, Leduc questioned whether the 84-unit development was needed at all.
“I think it’s important for us to know whether or not this type of development is needed in our ward,” he said.
“I’m not saying we don’t need this type of housing in other wards, I want to see our city expand right across the board, but I want to make sure that we’re expanding properly.”
There are a lot of subdivisions on the books, he said, adding, “my fear moving forward is, are we going to have units sitting empty? Is this the right type of housing for the area? Can we do better? We have to look at everything.”
Although the city needs affordable housing, Leduc said that he questions whether developments like this, which he classified as “more luxury housing” are needed.
“I want to make sure we’re building properly in Minnow Lake and not over-building and then having all these vacant places,” he said.
Asked whether there’s an oversupply of any classification of housing in Greater Sudbury, Cormier told Sudbury.com in no uncertain terms following Monday’s meeting, “no.”
“None of our data at this point suggests that,” he said. “There’s no bad housing. We need all of it across the whole spectrum.”
Vacancy rates are still hovering around the one-per-cent mark, where a healthy market would be around five per cent, he said.
Plus, Cormier clarified that it’s unclear what, exactly, the 84 proposed units would consist of and whether Leduc’s “luxury housing” classification would prove accurate.
“Based on the application, it doesn’t specify what market this will be geared toward, so that’s yet to be seen,” he said.
Sudbury.com sought insight from city communications staff on whether Leduc’s suggestion that luxury residential units could sit vacant for a long period of time is a viable concern.
They responded to this question indirectly by sharing links to existing reports around Sudbury’s low vacancy rate (1.4 per cent in October 2024) and the city’s “commitment to welcoming more residential developments.”
The city’s Housing Supply and Demand Analysis report from March 2023 noted that the vacancy rate was tighter for newer and more expensive housing, with “virtually no availability" within the city’s new rental stock constructed after 2000, and “very strong demand for new market-rate apartments.”
The analysis, which was reiterated in last year’s update, concludes, “the city should find ways to encourage more rental housing broadly across the housing continuum and affordability depths.”
The Oct. 22 planning committee meeting of city council will be their first held at the Lionel E. Lalonde Centre in Azilda, with council chambers shuttered for a couple of years to make way for Cultural Hub at Tom Davies Square renovations. It can be viewed in-person in Azilda or livestreamed by clicking here.
Tyler Clarke covers city hall and political affairs for Sudbury.com.